Texas Voter Registration Rolls Are Out of Control? : Vote Fraud or Error? 95,000 Errors?

Voter fraud or just plan errors in voter rolls is now becoming a national problem. It has always been here but just now the problem has taken on new increased dimensions to decide important elections. 

And when states like New York and California that are totally controlled by progressive socialist democrats that have in the past stated emphatically they will do what ever it takes to will an election. Little is left to wonder then who really is winning and or losing an election. 

And just imagine in a state like California where more then 40% o the population are immigrants with divers licenses. Do you think there might be some chance for fraud?

It is truly amazing that Donald Trump won given the amount of effort on the part of liberal democrats to change outcomes on election day.

Remember the Kennedy/ Nixon election where vertically Chicago along won the election for John Kennedy. The mayor said he could do that and he did.

What a Registration Surprise in Texas Tells Us About Voter Fraud

Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead / Caleb Morrison / @cmichaelmorr / January 29, 2019

The man in charge of elections in Texas made a surprise announcement last week: As many as 95,000 noncitizens had registered to vote, and 58,000 of them may have voted in at least one election between 1996 and 2018.

The finding announced by Texas Secretary of State David Whitley is serious, and almost immediately the news became the subject of sensational statements. Some, such as President Donald Trump, assert that this constitutes proof that 58,000 individuals unlawfully voted in Texas. Activists on the left, meanwhile, dismiss the findings altogether as merely setting the stage for voter purges and disenfranchisement.

In this case, neither side is getting it right.

Here’s what is actually happening. In Texas, individuals—including noncitizens—are required to present documents establishing their residency and identity when obtaining a driver’s license or state-issued personal identification card.

When a person presents a valid document such as a green card, indicating he or she is lawfully present but not a U.S. citizen, that record is preserved by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

This sort of information can be quite useful for elections officials responsible for maintaining voter rolls. Simply put, the records offer a more reliable reference set than self-reported data, since they are derived from verified government documentation.

For nearly a year, Whitley’s office has worked to compare the state’s voter rolls to data from the Department of Public Safety, with the goal of flagging people who are registered to vote but who also provided DPS with documentation indicating they are not U.S. citizens.

Comparing driver’s license information with voting records makes sense given that, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “the most common source of registration applications during the 2016 election cycle” was from motor vehicle agencies.

Texas officials sought to leverage this data to “flag” individuals who may have improperly registered to vote by cross-referencing DPS records of noncitizens and voter registration to look for matches. According to an official state advisory, Texas used “some of the strongest possible matching criteria,” such as a voter’s full name and full Social Security number, to “produce actionable information for voter registrars while producing the least possible impact on eligible voters.”

Nevertheless, Whitley’s office cautioned that the matches should be further investigated, and do not automatically trigger cancellation of voter registration.

The next step is for county election officials to investigate particular instances of possible unlawful registration and contact flagged voters by mail. These individuals then would have 30 days to respond to the letter in one of three manners.

A voter may reply that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, or may not reply at all. Either will result in the voter’s being removed from state rolls.

The voter also may respond with copies of a birth certificate, passport, or certificate of naturalization, thus affirming his or her right to vote.

Whitley’s announcement means that Texas has found 95,000 probable unlawful voter registrations, but these matches are not yet confirmed cases of voter fraud, nor the trigger for automatic cancelling any voter’s registration. And at no point is any lawful voter in danger of losing the right to vote.

Maintaining voter rolls is critical to a healthy and secure electoral system. In 2012, the Pew Center on the States reported that America’s voter rolls are riddled with errors. Pew reported that 24 million registrations, nearly 1 in 8, are inaccurate, out-of-date, or duplicative; 2.8 million individuals are registered in two or more states; and nearly 2 million deceased individuals remained on the rolls.

Also in 2012, Florida officials discovered that around 53,000 voters on the state’s rolls were in fact deceased. Earlier this year, Los Angeles County agreed to clean up its voter rolls, with the potential to remove 1.5 million inactive voters. Errors on such a scale raise serious doubts about the ability of elections officials to say with certainty who is, and who is not, lawfully permitted to cast ballots in an election.  Unfortunately, officials often fail to take maintenance of voter rolls seriously.

In Texas, for example, Attorney General Ken Paxton reported in a 2018 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Election Security that counties often fail to remove from the rolls individuals who self-report as noncitizens when responding under oath to a jury summons.

In Virginia, the Public Interest Legal Foundation discovered that the state had removed 5,556 noncitizens from the rolls since 2011—but had done so only after the voters themselves indicated they were not citizens. In other words, the state had taken no proactive steps to detect them.

Allowing these unauthorized registrations to persist makes it possible for ineligible individuals to vote—a felony under federal law. Each illegal ballot cast effectively disenfranchises a lawful voter, to say nothing of the broader doubts that unlawful voting raises about the sanctity of the process and the validity of the results.

That problem is hardly unique to Texas, a fact to which the many entries in The Heritage Foundation’s the voter fraud database can attest. Now it is up to county officials in Texas to carry the ball forward. Texas law gives them discretion on the crucial question of whether to investigate the voters the state has flagged.

It is incumbent on these officials to follow up on the leads and remove every illegal registration—especially now that understandable doubts have been raised in the minds of Lone Star voters.

Those individuals who knowingly voted despite being ineligible ought to be prosecuted.

Other states should follow the example set by Texas, and take seriously the task of cleaning up their voter rolls and maintaining them better. American voters in every state deserve nothing less.

Progressive democrats Hate White People : What Is The Defination of Racism?

Progressive democrat explain racism. They hate not just

white people but all people that are free to chose.

The progressive socialist liberal Marxist democrats are always searching for that elusive tool to demonize, beat Republican and Conservative voters into submission and therefore become obedient to the agenda and ideology of socialist, Marist philosophy of capitulation and subservience to a cauterized authority.

That most Republican and Conservatives are white, both men and women and they vote according to their own minds, much differently then the progressive socialist that do as they are told by their collective betters. White men are deciding their own destiny. Black men, for the most  part do not have that option as they are controlled by the porgressive democrat collective.

And why is that? What have the democrats done to the entire black population that they deserve such generational enslavement?

Little wonder then the socialsit democrat hate machine is now focused on white guys.  Is this racist? Are all liberal democrats racist? Do all democrats hate white people just because they are white? Or is it that they have decided to vote their minds based on facts and experience in living and working in a capitalist civil society and not ad demented ideology? 

As Limbaugh and Williams have stated, this attack on white men is only temporary. They will use this until something else comes along that the liberal left can use as a club to beat down any opposition to what the socialsit democrats believe is a utopia of a level playing field, where all suffer failure and pestilence equally.

Marxism for all. One has to wonder how that has worked out for Venezuela? History says it has never worked and it never will. But pay no attention to the democrats behind the curtain pulling on the levers of power, they have no issues or proposals to better the nation and it's people. Only hate.

Their mission is to get and keep the power for control, and by any means necessary. And to do that they bring default, chaos, conflict and abject poverty to the nation. Once that is accomplished, the people will have no where to turn. All good democrat voters.

And if you still need more confirmation, just pay attention to Camila Harris or Alexander Cortez. Leaders in the progressive socialist Marxist movement now in the open for all to see.

Understand, do not vote for self destruction. Do not vote for the socialsit democrats. Our nation deserves better then these two. Our survival is at stake.
  

The Demonizing of White Men

Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / January 30, 2019

Rush Limbaugh’s December 2018 “Limbaugh Letter” has an article titled “Demonizing White Men.” It highlights—with actual quotations from people in the media, academia, and the political and entertainment arenas—the attack on white men as a class.

You can decide whether these statements are decent, moral, or even sensible. Should we support their visions?

Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”

Steven Clifford, former King Broadcasting CEO, said, “I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise [to vote], and I think that will save our democracy.”

Teen Vogue, a magazine targeting teenage girls, wrote, “Not only is white male terrorism as dangerous as Islamic extremism, but our collective safety rests in rooting out the source of their radicalization.”

Economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote a column titled “The Angry White Male Caucus,” in which he explained, “Trumpism is all about the fear of losing traditional privilege.”

There have been similar despicable statements made by academics.

James Livingston, a Rutgers history professor: “OK, officially, I now hate white people. … I hereby resign from my race. F— these people.”

Stacey Patton, a Morgan State University professor: “There is nothing more dangerous in the United States than a white man who has expected to succeed and finds himself falling behind.”

Stony Brook University sociology professor Michael Kimmel explained, “White men’s anger comes from the potent fusion of two sentiments: entitlement and a sense of victimization.”

Then there’s the political arena.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “There’s no question that in Georgia and in Florida racism has reared its ugly head. And you have candidates who ran against [Andrew] Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist. … And that is an outrage.”

Michael Avenatti, criticizing the GOP senators during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings: “These old white men still don’t understand that assault victims and women deserve respect and to be heard.”

“What troubles me is … they’re all white men,” commented former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm regarding GOP senators questioning Christine Blasey Ford at the Kavanaugh hearings.

William Falk, editor-in-chief of The Week, said, “There’s something odd about the overwhelming white maleness of Washington’s current leadership.”

Not to be outdone, entertainers have hopped on the demonizing-white-men bandwagon.

Joy Behar, talking on ABC’s “The View” about senators supporting Kavanaugh, said: “These white men—old, by the way—are not protecting women. They’re protecting a man who is probably guilty.”

Actress Gabourey Sidibe, also on “The View,” said: “Older white men are a problem, y’all, for everyone. We’re all at risk.”

Moira Donegan wrote an article for The Guardian titled “Half of White Women Continue to Vote Republican. What’s Wrong With Them?”

Renee Graham wrote a column in The Boston Globe that counseled, “Memo to black men: Stop voting Republican.”

Comedian Chelsea Handler tweeted, “Just a friendly reminder for the weekend: No white after Labor Day, and no old, white racist men after the midterms. Get out and vote.”

That is just a partial list of statements that would be viewed and condemned as racist simply by replacing “white men” with “black men,” “Mexican men,” or “Asian men.” You can bet the rent money that university presidents and media executives would sanction any of their employees for making similar broad, sweeping statements about nonwhite men.

Suppose a white anchorman said, “Black people are the greatest murder threat in this country.” I guarantee you that he’d be shown the door.

There are only two ways to explain the silence by people who should know better. Either they agree with the sentiments expressed or they are out-and-out cowards.

Decent American people ought to soundly reject and condemn this brazen attack on white men. I think that the attack is on masculinity itself and that white men are a convenient scapegoat—for now.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Antique Car Values and Desirablity : Midyear Corvettes In Decline? Mustang GT350?

The Hagerty foundation of insurance and antique car fame, rate car values and has listed the 25 most declining cars on the auction block as being less desirable, or bidders that are not willing to buy these cars like the use to. 

Hagerty says the new buyers are not as interested in cars that their dads loved and owned. Their tastes are different and so are less willing to consider the expensive and rare vehicles of the past. They say they are not as fun to drive as later models and brands.

Worse, according to the ''xperts'', the new buyers have no connection to older cars as they weren't around when they appeared on the scene, driving the rest of us crazy because we had the rare privilege of not having anything of any quality to drive, there just wasn't anything that came close to these fantastic cool cars like the Corvette and the Ford Mustang and the Gt350 that is also listed as in decline. That's crazy!

Also most of us didn't have the money to buy a foreign import sports car like the kids today who seem to be able to buy what ever they want. We wouldn't and couldn't do that. There just wasn't the discretionary money available. So when the Corvettes and Mustangs appeared, priced within our ability to buy and not starve, we were astatic. One of those cars, or group of cars that is listed as in decline is the midyear Corvettes, 1963 thru 1967. 

As an original owner of a 1967, I had to respond to this nonsense as listed below. 

Hagerty Antique Car Forum

This discussion is interesting in that I’m the original owner of a '67 Corvette convertible and have never lacked for someone wanting to buy it. And price never seemed to be a problem. It’s not a ‘‘trailer queen’’ for sure as I drive it often. It’s probably what the ‘‘Officals at Hagerty’’ would call ‘‘in good condition’’. I am slowly upgrading some of the more tested items on my friend as we speak. 

Still, the people that talk to me about this car just love the idea of having a Corvette that looks like what they believe a Corvette should look like. It’s going on being in my possession since May 22nd of 1967, that’s going on 52 years, and I remember like it was yesterday the thrill of seeing it the very first day at the dealership. I have no intention of selling any time soon. 

If it’s value goes down, as they say, then so be it. I’m on the way down as well, so we, my close friend and confidant will meet our maker together.

Progressive democrats A Threat to National Securtiy? : Grtting Power Is More Important?

Is power the for control more important the national security?

Chuck said what President Trump did by reopening the government endorsed his position on the border wall, he is against national security being a concern, wins the day for the socialist democrats isn't true at all. 

What Trump did was show he is willing to have the debate for all to see and when he has the floor in the House of Representatives for the State of the Union speech on February the 5th, he will provide his reasoning for a national audience to comprehend, and as it is his Constitutional responsibility to provide for national security, while the others are not concerned about the country but only the politics of getting and keeping power as usual. 

President Trump will have the national eye and ear to make his case.

The democrats will be on the nook to compromise like he did and when they don't and they won't of course, it's always the responsibility of the Republicans to cave on their principles and reach across the aisle for compromise, democrats never, never compromise!

The president will have the high ground to move on his own to protect the population. He will have no choice but to act on his own. The progressive socialist liberal democrats will be seen as irresponsible and a threat to national security. 

Don't vote for them ever again. They mean to do us all harm. It is definitely in our best interest, as a nation, to vote them totally out of office. The survival of our civil society depends on it.

Democratic Win on Government Shutdown Leaves Little Hope for Compromise

Cal Thomas / @CalThomas / January 29, 2019

The first thing that needs to be said about President Donald Trump’s decision to sign a measure re-opening part of the federal government without getting money for the wall he demanded is that his experience as a New York businessman was no help.

Perhaps he failed to recognize that Democrats are the party of government and no one guards the power, cost, and perks of government better than they do.

As long as Democrats stuck together—and they did (Republicans should learn a lesson)—he was bound to lose. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were justified in their smirking reaction. Schumer bragged, “This agreement endorses our position.”

Of course a wall, or barrier, or something, is needed to stem the tide of those who enter the country illegally, and some Border Patrol agents agree.

“Absolutely” helpful, Brian Hastings, a U.S. Border Patrol chief of law enforcement operations, said back in November, as the immigrant caravan inched its way toward our border. Aren’t these agents on the front lines more knowledgeable than career politicians playing their annoying games in Washington?

Does anyone expect promised “negotiations” between Senate and House Republicans these next three weeks to produce anything that successfully contributes to real border security?

Democrats, flushed with at least a short-term victory, are not about to anger their base by compromising, and some in the Republican base are upset by the president’s so-called cave to Democrat demands.

In a Rose Garden announcement of his decision to re-open government, the president held out the possibility of declaring a national emergency if Democrats continue to refuse funding for his barrier wall. We know where that will lead, don’t we?

Democrats will likely go to a liberal federal judge, probably named by President Barack Obama, and get a stay on the order. Any appeal process could take months, adding more fuel to the chaos stoking anger among many on the left and the right.

One way to get Democrats to focus might be to steer those entering illegally with criminal backgrounds to the states and districts where members of Congress who oppose the wall reside. Cynical, I know, but in Washington, since the 2016 election, cynicism reigns supreme.

There are solutions to almost any problem, but it appears politicians prefer the immigration issue to run on as a means of raising money, garnering votes, and harnessing power. It’s all about politicians and rarely about the rest of us, their claims about “the American people” notwithstanding.

Trump made building a wall (and getting Mexico to pay for it) the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign and the first half of his term. If it doesn’t happen, with or without the help of Congress, he must find another way to do it that the courts will allow and that his base will accept.

If he doesn’t, his re-election chances may be hurt, assuming Democrats don’t come up with a hard-left candidate.

Maybe the president will do all these things. I hope he does. The alternative is likely a socialist government offering high taxes and even more debt, which would end the economic boon that has benefited a record number of new U.S. workers.

The Republican National Committee released a statement that said: “Although this bill does not provide wall funding, President Trump remains firmly committed to securing funding during ongoing negotiations. President Trump will not budge on building the wall.”

Pelosi remains just as committed not to fund a wall. The power center has shifted to her, no matter what some other House Democrats are saying about their support of a fence or other barrier. As of Friday she was still refusing to confirm a date for the State of the Union address.

It’s all phony.

Each time I travel internationally, I must go through immigration and customs at the airport. If I attempted to re-enter this or another country illegally, I would be arrested. What’s the difference when Pelosi, Schumer, and many other Democrats won’t stop non-citizens from sneaking into America?

(c) 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Catholic Clergyman Explains Who Nancy Pelosi Is : A Saint?(Humor)?

I love this summation of the attributes of Nancy Pelosi from a member of the clergy. Yeah, again, I know this is old, it's been around the block a few times, but when something works as well as this does to highlight the most telling characteristics of a Washington and California progressive socialsit liberal Marxist democrat, why not run it again? And again! And again! And again!  - - - .

We sure as hell won't hear anything even close to this from the spineless and hand wringing worthless Republicans. 

NANCY PELOSI AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Last Saturday afternoon in Washington, D.C. an aide to Nancy Pelosi visited the Bishop of the Catholic Cathedral in D.C. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's Mass, and asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

 

The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over some of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look, I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to you if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."

 

The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the Church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide promised, Nancy Pelosi appeared for the Sunday worship and seated herself prominently at the forward left side of the center aisle. 

As promised, at the start of his sermon, the Cardinal pointed out that Ms. Pelosi was present.

 

The Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation, "While Ms. Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, the woman is not numbered among my personal favorite personages. Some of her most egregious views are contrary to tenets of the Church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other issues. 

Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. I must say, Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. 

She married for money and is using her wealth to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington and in California The woman is simply not to be trusted."

 

The Cardinal concluded. “But, when compared with Hillary Clinton, Ms. Pelosi is a saint."

Progressives March Calling Trump Hitler : They Identify Themselves As Morons

There appear to be some clarity among the ranks of the mentally tortured democrats. I think this is a poster child moment to be savored and kept on hand when you have a weak moment thinking these disciple of ignorant neurotic depraved behavior might be considered actually being normal human beings instead of progressive socialist liberal ''new wave Marxists'' robots, puppets of disease leadership.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is probably photoshopped but still it works well for identifying the mentally sick that inhabit our civil society. 

And given there isn't much to laugh about these days with all of the lunatics spewing hate for our Constitution and our country,  it's good for a laugh. 

No, you aren't just a moron, but a very vicious pathological sick puppet of the

progressive left deprave socialist democrats.

AOC/Harris Medicare For All IS Working : Plan ''G'' For Senior Retirement

AOC and Harris teamed up for America's ''New Wave Marxists'' medical plan they instituted after the progressive socialsit liberals won, took total power in 2020. They cleaned house. No more cut-throat Republicans in the way of true progress. Here is just one option that is available that will help all those that didn't plan for retirement. 

Some among us decided that life was for living in the fast lane, ''Live fast, love hard and die young'' but didn't. Now with the medical system completely broke, hospitals shut and welfare gone, broke, soup lines shut down, the AOC Harris Medicare For All plan is working to a tee.

They looked at the Cuban medial plan for these people and saw that it worked well for them, but as an option for those in America responsible for elderly care, the 14cent option at 3am, the smartest in the room decided even that would be problematic as the shear number of items in that plan for 'after action clean-up' area would be prohibitive.

Subject: MEDICARE PLAN G

Say you are an older senior citizen, and can no longer take care of
yourself; and the government says there is no nursing home care available
for you. So, what do you do? You opt for "Medicare Plan G".

The plan gives anyone 75 or older a gun (Plan G) and one bullet. You are
allowed to shoot one worthless politician. This means you will be sent to
prison for the rest of your life, where you will receive three meals a day,
a roof over your head, central heating and air conditioning, cable TV, a
library, and all the health care you need. Need new teeth? No problem.
Need glasses? That's great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney,
lungs, sex change, or heart ? They are all covered!

As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as
they do now! And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government
that just told you they can't afford for you to go into a nursing home.
And you will get rid of a useless politician while you are at it. And now,
because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any more income taxes!

Is this a great country or what?

Gun Manufactures Optimism Falling : Regulations And Politics

The gun manufactures shouldn't be worried as the number of uninformed and ignorant voters among us that will be more then willing to vote for democrats across the board in 2020.
uncertainy
Know this, the socialist can win in 2020! Too many people are easily duped, mentally lazy. 

Then when the country begins to head back into default, people will again start buying guns and ammunition, burying them in the back yard, as the progressive socialist liberal New Marxist democrats will demand gun confiscation as a means for public safety, and then once and for all bring the population to heel, demanding obedience and capitulation or suffer the consequences. Reeducation or interment.

Don't ever vote democrat again as our country deserves better. Our survival depends being alert and smart.

I Spoke With Gun Manufacturers From Across America. Their Optimism Is Waning.

Ted Bromund / @Bromund / January 28, 2019

Two years ago at the annual SHOT Show—the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation—Second Amendment supporters felt optimism that the first year of the Trump administration would bring good things to firearm makers, sellers, and users.

This year, there was a lot less optimism.

Not all the bad news is a shock. The liberal press, and liberal activists, are delighted that firearm and ammunition sales are down since President Donald Trump took office. But I’ve warned for years that the incredible sales under President Barack Obama were not sustainable.

This was an easy prediction to make: The firearms industry has a long pattern of boom and bust, and reacts quickly to political events.

In fact, you can read the modern political history of the United States by looking at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ annual report on firearms manufacturing. Firearms manufactured went up in 1993-94 as the so-called assault weapons ban approached, then went down under President George W. Bush, and then went up sharply over the entire Obama presidency, culminating in a 2016 surge when it looked likely that Hillary Clinton would win the election.

After Trump won, it was inevitable that sales would decline, and that parts of the industry that bought lots of inventory in anticipation of a Clinton victory would suffer.

Anxious buyers, too, stockpiled lots of ammunition over the Obama years. Now, they’re shooting through their stockpiles.

But the real picture is one of change, not decline. Shooting participation in the U.S. continues to shift slowly away from hunting and toward target shooting at ranges, reflecting urbanization and a changing customer base.

That poses challenges to the industry, which explains the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s +One campaign to encourage shooters to bring new participants into shooting sports in general, with a special focus on hunting.

Nevertheless, the industry remains strong. This year’s show had more exhibiting firms than ever before, and next year’s SHOT Show will be even bigger.

Yet there is no denying that the firearms industry is not overly happy. On the floor of the SHOT Show, I observed a sense among the attendees that the opportunities of the past two years had faded.

True, there have been successes. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has campaigned for years to fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and found success when Trump signed the Fix NICS Act into law in March 2018.

This commonsense reform will do more to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them than all the showboating measures backed by congressional Democrats.

And, in another win for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, most firearms, ammunition, and parts and components will soon move from the regulatory jurisdiction of the State Department to the Department of Commerce. This important reform has nothing to do with the availability of firearms in the United States, but instead will make it easier for U.S. businesses to compete for foreign contracts.

The industry also scored a win when the Department of the Interior opened up more than 250,000 new acres to hunting and fishing.

But when you combine the inevitable yet unwelcome decline in sales with the administration’s new regulations on bump stocks (which allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one round per trigger pull), plus the fact that Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulation under Trump is—incredibly—more secretive and arbitrary than it was under Obama, you get dissatisfaction.

Throw in the administration’s complete inaction on the international front—the president has not unsigned the Arms Trade Treaty, which the U.S. continues to fund—and you get the sense that I encountered over and over again on the show floor: Trump is appreciated for who he is, not for what he has done.

In other words, not being Hillary Clinton is worth a lot. Yet on firearms, not being Clinton is a low bar.

And 2019 doesn’t look likely to bring much cheer for the industry. There is state-level silliness to contend with, like California’s ban on hunting with lead ammunition. And with a Democratic House of Representatives, sensible measures like the National Shooting Sports Foundation-backed Hearing Protection Act, which would make it easier to buy suppressors, are likely going nowhere.

That’s a pity. Having been fortunate enough to shoot at Sig Sauer’s Media Range Day this year, I can testify that a suppressed rifle still makes a heck of a noise, and that a suppressor makes a huge difference in the enjoyability of target shooting.

Of course, if you make shooting easier or more enjoyable, more people will do it—which is precisely what liberals hate.

Ultimately, the firearms industry, and the interests and passions it supports, is in a good position in the United States. Sales are down, but participation is steady.

The Trump administration needs to do what it can over the next year to solidify that position. By putting Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rule-making back on a normal basis, finishing the move of firearms regulation to the Commerce Department, and unsigning the Arms Trade Treaty, the administration will be doing the right thing—and win support for more than just not being Clinton.